https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
[for two clocks at rest in relatively moving frames] Both clocks
show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference
at relative rest is taken for calculations.
This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science,
On 11/5/23 5:10 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
[for two clocks at rest in relatively moving frames] Both clocksYes. For once you have written something that is correct.
show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference
at relative rest is taken for calculations.
This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science,Nope! It merely shows that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR.
Hint: the two frames are measuring DIFFERENT QUANTITIES.
There is no contradiction.
Tom Roberts
On 11/5/23 5:10 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
[for two clocks at rest in relatively moving frames] Both clocksYes. For once you have written something that is correct.
show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference
at relative rest is taken for calculations.
This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science,Nope! It merely shows that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR.
Hint: the two frames are measuring DIFFERENT QUANTITIES.
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:08:24 AM UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
More ridiculous is the LACK OF explanation of symmetry in relativity, explained by pure breed relativists that maintain the Wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
"Time dilation"
"Suppose there is a clock at rest in F. If a time interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F′ by Δt′ = γΔt.
Conversely, suppose there is a clock at rest in F′. If an interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx′ = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F by Δt = γΔt′.
Either way, each observer measures the time interval between ticks of a moving clock to be longer by a factor γ than the time interval between ticks
of his own clock".
CONCLUSION: Both clocks show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference at relative rest is taken for calculations.
This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science, which has gained reputation as the stroke of a genius who destroyed Newton's physics.
Den 06.11.2023 00:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:08:24 AM UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
More ridiculous is the LACK OF explanation of symmetry in relativity, explained by pure breed relativists that maintain the Wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
"Time dilation"
"Suppose there is a clock at rest in F. If a time interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F′ by Δt′ = γΔt.
Conversely, suppose there is a clock at rest in F′. If an interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx′ = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F by Δt = γΔt′.
Either way, each observer measures the time interval between ticks of a moving clock to be longer by a factor γ than the time interval between ticks
of his own clock".
CONCLUSION: Both clocks show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference at relative rest is taken for calculations.Right!
This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science, which has gained reputation as the stroke of a genius who destroyed Newton's physics.If there are inconsistencies, they should be here:
snip fresh imbecilities<
Lame justification of the paradox at this link, maintained by relativists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
Den 06.11.2023 00:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:08:24 AM UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
More ridiculous is the LACK OF explanation of symmetry in relativity, explained by pure breed relativists that maintain the Wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
"Time dilation"
"Suppose there is a clock at rest in F. If a time interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F′ by Δt′ = γΔt.
Conversely, suppose there is a clock at rest in F′. If an interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx′ = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F by Δt = γΔt′.
Either way, each observer measures the time interval between ticks of a moving clock to be longer by a factor γ than the time interval between ticks
of his own clock".
CONCLUSION: Both clocks show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference at relative rest is taken for calculations.Right!
This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science, which has gained reputation as the stroke of a genius who destroyed Newton's physics.If there are inconsistencies, they should be here:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
Can you find them and point them out?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Den 07.11.2023 04:32, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 6:59:06 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 06.11.2023 00:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
Right!
More ridiculous is the LACK OF explanation of symmetry in relativity, explained by pure breed relativists that maintain the Wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
"Time dilation"
"Suppose there is a clock at rest in F. If a time interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F′ by Δt′ = γΔt.
Conversely, suppose there is a clock at rest in F′. If an interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx′ = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F by Δt = γΔt′.
Either way, each observer measures the time interval between ticks of a moving clock to be longer by a factor γ than the time interval between ticks
of his own clock".
CONCLUSION: Both clocks show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference at relative rest is taken for calculations.
This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science, which has gained reputation as the stroke of a genius who destroyed Newton's physics.
Note: The question is NOT if SR is correct in the sense thatIf there are inconsistencies, they should be here:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
Can you find them and point them out?
its predictions are consistent with measurement/observations.
This can't be proved.
The question is if SR is consistent, that is free of self contradictions. That SR is consistent can be and is proved.
To prove that "The Shit" is inconsistent, you have to prove that
the Lorentz transformation (LT) is inconsistent.
Your admission of your failure to understand the mathematics of SR
Den 07.11.2023 04:32, skrev Richard Hertz:
Relativity IS A PSEUDO-SCIENCE and, as you embraced it decades ago, for you is
better to die than to reason and concede.
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 6:59:06 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 06.11.2023 00:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
Right!
More ridiculous is the LACK OF explanation of symmetry in relativity, explained by pure breed relativists that maintain the Wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
"Time dilation"
"Suppose there is a clock at rest in F. If a time interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F′ by Δt′ = γΔt.
Conversely, suppose there is a clock at rest in F′. If an interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx′ = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F by Δt = γΔt′.
Either way, each observer measures the time interval between ticks of a moving clock to be longer by a factor γ than the time interval between ticks
of his own clock".
CONCLUSION: Both clocks show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference at relative rest is taken for calculations.
This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science, which has gained reputation as the stroke of a genius who destroyed Newton's physics.
If there are inconsistencies, they should be here:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
Can you find them and point them out?
Frames origin separated by d = vt, after being synchronized when both origins are coincident (at t = 0).
Time elapsed AT ANY SELECTED relatively stationary reference frame: t = d/v.
PERCEPTION of the time elapsed at ANY SELECTED RELATIVELY MOVING reference frame: τ = γt.
Paul: "The symmetry is obvious".
Paul: "Which clock is running slow or fast relative to which?"
Paul: "The answer depends on how the clocks are compared!"
NO, Paul, it is not.
As a typical relativist, you need to make muddy waters of an explanation, so you can display your lies and fallacies.
The problem couldn't be MORE SIMPLE, but you need to make the explanation as twisted and retorted as possible. It's similar to
the attitude of an eccentric "smart ass" who wants to scratch his left ear with his right arm, but passing it around its neck, instead
of using the left arm OR the right arm crossing his chest.
You have been assimilated by the relativistic doctrine, which is: make things as complicated as possible, to set a defense ground
for any refutation. With this technique, you'll always have the means to explain a simple thing in complex ways, abusing of fallacies
and, of course, deceptive assertions.
Relativity IS A PSEUDO-SCIENCE and, as you embraced it decades ago, for you is better to die than to reason and concede.
The paradox is not that SR is a flawed metaphysical theory. The paradox, on you, is that being intelligent yet chose a stupid theory till the end,
and waste all your energy defending this crap.
It's exactly the behavior of A FANATIC in science, football, politics, history, etc.
Le 07/11/2023 à 15:33, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Den 07.11.2023 04:32, skrev Richard Hertz:
No, the theory of relativity is not a pseudo science.Relativity IS A PSEUDO-SCIENCE and, as you embraced it decades ago, for you is
better to die than to reason and concede.
It is a superb theory whose origin begins with Joseph Larmor and Henri Poincaré at the end of the 19th century.
Lame justification of the paradox at this link, maintained by relativists: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
There is no paradox.
*IF* there were a paradox, then each twin would disagree
as to how many years that the other twin has aged. In
reality, if the twins maintain communication throughout
the traveling twin's flight, then both twins will be in perfect
agreement about who aged by how much, regardless of
their different experiences. See my discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 3:10:22 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
snip fresh imbecilities<
On November 6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
Lame justification of the paradox at this link, maintained by relativists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
There is no paradox.
*IF* there were a paradox, then each twin would disagreeSuppose, instead of accelerating from v = 0, the traveler is already
as to how many years that the other twin has aged. In
reality, if the twins maintain communication throughout
the traveling twin's flight, then both twins will be in perfect
agreement about who aged by how much, regardless of
their different experiences. See my discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox
moving at V, when he meets the home twin? Then at that instant,
they sync clocks at t =0
Regardless of any variations that you make in the traveling
twin's itinerary, at the end of the journey, when both twins
meet up again, both twins will be in perfect agreement
about who aged by how much, regardless of their different
experiences
*IF* there were a paradox, then each twin would disagree
as to how many years that the other twin has aged. In
reality, if the twins maintain communication throughout
the traveling twin's flight, then both twins will be in perfect
agreement about who aged by how much, regardless of
their different experiences. See my discussion here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox
Suppose, instead of accelerating from v = 0, the traveler is already
moving at V, when he meets the home twin? Then at that instant,
they sync clocks at t =0
Regardless of any variations that you make in the traveling
twin's itinerary, at the end of the journey, when both twins
meet up again, both twins will be in perfect agreement
about who aged by how much, regardless of their different
experiences. A glance at the Minkowski diagram should tell
you that, even before you go into any detailed calculations
such as I presented in the table.
On November 8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
Regardless of any variations that you make in the travelingMissing the point, as usual.
twin's itinerary, at the end of the journey, when both twins
meet up again, both twins will be in perfect agreement
about who aged by how much, regardless of their different
experiences. A glance at the Minkowski diagram should tell
you that, even before you go into any detailed calculations
such as I presented in the table.
The question isn't whether they agree at finish, it's a matter of distinguishing
two different scenarios. One, that you cover, posits the traveler starting from
rest, then accelerating. In the other, the traveler is moving at speed V before
they rendezvous.
There are a million articles on the twins paradox, and none of them ever address
this point in their flabby pseudo-analysis. So here's your chance to be one in a
million: recognize the distinction, and analyze both cases.
For bonus credit, place an observer Henry halfway along the route, and ask: what do the clocks show, when Traveler meets Henry? Note that, in the case where Traveler is already in motion, Henry and Earthbound Ed will demonstrate
the relative simultaneity concept; quite instructive.
More ridiculous is the LACK OF explanation of symmetry in relativity, explained by pure breed
relativists that maintain the Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
"Time dilation"
"Suppose there is a clock at rest in F. If a time interval is measured at the same point in that frame,
then the transformations give this interval in F′ by Δt′ = γΔt. Conversely, suppose there is a clock at rest in F′. If an interval is measured at the same point
in that frame, then the transformations give this interval in F by Δt = γΔt′.
Either way, each observer measures the time interval between ticks of a moving clock to be longer
by a factor γ than the time interval between ticks of his own clock". CONCLUSION: Both clocks show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of
reference at relative rest is taken for calculations.
This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
Le 09/03/2024 à 10:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
This deserves a prize for the most idiotic argument ever made here.
Le 09/03/2024 à 10:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
This deserves a prize for the most idiotic argument ever made here.
W dniu 09.03.2024 o 17:40, Python pisze:
Le 09/03/2024 à 10:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
This deserves a prize for the most idiotic argument ever made here.
Your rants won't change anything, the mumble
of your idiot guru was not even consistent,
what has been proven.
BTW, have you already learnt what a function is?
Or maybe "for any element of the domain" clause
is still confusing you,
poor stinker
Le 09/03/2024 à 18:36, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 09.03.2024 o 17:40, Python pisze:
Le 09/03/2024 à 10:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
This deserves a prize for the most idiotic argument ever made here.
Your rants won't change anything, the mumble
of your idiot guru was not even consistent,
what has been proven.
It is not a rant. Your argument is utterly stupid.
BTW, have you already learnt what a function is?
Or maybe "for any element of the domain" clause
is still confusing you,
You are dense, Maciej...
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_(math%C3%A9matiques)#Fonction_et_application
""" Dans les années 1950, l'école Bourbaki tente de définir précisément les deux notions. Ainsi peut-on lire dans un projet de rédaction du
Livre I, Chapitre II des Éléments de 19547, les définitions suivantes :
La relation R(x,y) est appelée une relation fonctionnelle de type
(T × U) si elle satisfait à la condition suivante : quel que soit x, il existe au plus un y tel R(x,y). À toute relation fonctionnelle, on
attache un objet nouveau que l'on appelle une fonction8 ;
On appelle champ de définition de la fonction f l'ensemble des éléments x de E pour lesquels il existe y tel que R(x,y). C'est une
partie E de E. On dit que f est définie sur E et dans E9 ;
Au lieu de parler d'une fonction définie sur E et prenant ses valeurs dans F, on parle d'une application de E dans F10.
Même si, dans la rédaction finale des Éléments de 197011, la fonction
est toujours définie sur son ensemble de départ, cette distinction est reprise dans l'enseignement français du secondaire, premier et second
cycle, quand, à la suite de la Commission Lichnerowicz, se mettent en
place les nouveaux programmes, à partir de 1968. Ainsi voit-on dès la
6e, illustrées par des diagrammes sagittaux, les définitions suivantes :
les relations telles que, de chaque élément de l'ensemble de départ, il part au plus une flèche, s'appellent des fonctions ;
les relations telles que, de chaque élément de l'ensemble de départ, il part exactement une flèche, s'appellent des applications.
En pratique, le fait qu'il suffise de réduire l'ensemble de départ d'une fonction à son ensemble de définition pour la transformer en application rend peu utile ce distinguo. """
W dniu 09.03.2024 o 19:19, Python pisze:
Le 09/03/2024 à 18:36, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 09.03.2024 o 17:40, Python pisze:
Le 09/03/2024 à 10:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
This deserves a prize for the most idiotic argument ever made here.
Your rants won't change anything, the mumble
of your idiot guru was not even consistent,
what has been proven.
It is not a rant. Your argument is utterly stupid.
Your rants won't change anything, the utterly
stupid mumble of your idiot guru was not even
consistent, what has been proven.
BTW, have you already learnt what a function is?
Or maybe "for any element of the domain" clause
is still confusing you,
You are dense, Maciej...
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_(math%C3%A9matiques)#Fonction_et_application
""" Dans les années 1950, l'école Bourbaki tente de définir
précisément les deux notions. Ainsi peut-on lire dans un projet de
rédaction du Livre I, Chapitre II des Éléments de 19547, les
définitions suivantes :
La relation R(x,y) est appelée une relation fonctionnelle de type >> (T × U) si elle satisfait à la condition suivante : quel que soit x,
il existe au plus un y tel R(x,y). À toute relation fonctionnelle, on
attache un objet nouveau que l'on appelle une fonction8 ;
On appelle champ de définition de la fonction f l'ensemble des
éléments x de E pour lesquels il existe y tel que R(x,y). C'est une
partie E de E. On dit que f est définie sur E et dans E9 ;
Au lieu de parler d'une fonction définie sur E et prenant ses
valeurs dans F, on parle d'une application de E dans F10.
Même si, dans la rédaction finale des Éléments de 197011, la fonction
est toujours définie sur son ensemble de départ, cette distinction est
reprise dans l'enseignement français du secondaire, premier et second
cycle, quand, à la suite de la Commission Lichnerowicz, se mettent en
place les nouveaux programmes, à partir de 1968. Ainsi voit-on dès la
6e, illustrées par des diagrammes sagittaux, les définitions suivantes : >>
les relations telles que, de chaque élément de l'ensemble de
départ, il part au plus une flèche, s'appellent des fonctions ;
les relations telles que, de chaque élément de l'ensemble de
départ, il part exactement une flèche, s'appellent des applications.
En pratique, le fait qu'il suffise de réduire l'ensemble de départ
d'une fonction à son ensemble de définition pour la transformer en
application rend peu utile ce distinguo. """
So? Is "for any element of the domain" clause in the
definition of function still confusing you or have you
learned something,
poor stinkerNice signature though.
Le 09/03/2024 à 20:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 09.03.2024 o 19:19, Python pisze:
Le 09/03/2024 à 18:36, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 09.03.2024 o 17:40, Python pisze:
Le 09/03/2024 à 10:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
This deserves a prize for the most idiotic argument ever made here.
Your rants won't change anything, the mumble
of your idiot guru was not even consistent,
what has been proven.
It is not a rant. Your argument is utterly stupid.
Your rants won't change anything, the utterly
stupid mumble of your idiot guru was not even
consistent, what has been proven.
You've proven nothing but your own confusion and dementia.
BTW, have you already learnt what a function is?
Or maybe "for any element of the domain" clause
is still confusing you,
You are dense, Maciej...
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_(math%C3%A9matiques)#Fonction_et_application
""" Dans les années 1950, l'école Bourbaki tente de définir
précisément les deux notions. Ainsi peut-on lire dans un projet de
rédaction du Livre I, Chapitre II des Éléments de 19547, les
définitions suivantes :
La relation R(x,y) est appelée une relation fonctionnelle de
type (T × U) si elle satisfait à la condition suivante : quel que
soit x, il existe au plus un y tel R(x,y). À toute relation
fonctionnelle, on attache un objet nouveau que l'on appelle une
fonction8 ;
On appelle champ de définition de la fonction f l'ensemble des >>> éléments x de E pour lesquels il existe y tel que R(x,y). C'est une
partie E de E. On dit que f est définie sur E et dans E9 ;
Au lieu de parler d'une fonction définie sur E et prenant ses
valeurs dans F, on parle d'une application de E dans F10.
Même si, dans la rédaction finale des Éléments de 197011, la fonction >>> est toujours définie sur son ensemble de départ, cette distinction
est reprise dans l'enseignement français du secondaire, premier et
second cycle, quand, à la suite de la Commission Lichnerowicz, se
mettent en place les nouveaux programmes, à partir de 1968. Ainsi
voit-on dès la 6e, illustrées par des diagrammes sagittaux, les
définitions suivantes :
les relations telles que, de chaque élément de l'ensemble de
départ, il part au plus une flèche, s'appellent des fonctions ;
les relations telles que, de chaque élément de l'ensemble de
départ, il part exactement une flèche, s'appellent des applications.
En pratique, le fait qu'il suffise de réduire l'ensemble de départ
d'une fonction à son ensemble de définition pour la transformer en
application rend peu utile ce distinguo. """
So? Is "for any element of the domain" clause in the
definition of function still confusing you or have you
learned something,
Did you notice the distinction between "ensemble de départ" and
"domaine" that has been (and still) is make in French math education?
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 15:12:33 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
Proof here that Wozniak is the one who slanders.
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Is this supposed to be Wozniak's so-called
"proof" that relativity is "inconsistent?
Wozniak conflates a moving observer with a
stationary observer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
W dniu 22.08.2024 o 18:47, gharnagel pisze:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 15:12:33 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
Proof here that Wozniak is the one who slanders.
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Is this supposed to be Wozniak's so-called
"proof" that relativity is "inconsistent?
Wozniak conflates a moving observer with a
stationary observer
A lie,
as expected from a relativistic idiot in
general and from Harrie especially,
one observer present here, a moving (wrt
Solar System) one.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:06:27 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 22.08.2024 o 18:47, gharnagel pisze:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 15:12:33 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
Proof here that Wozniak is the one who slanders.
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Is this supposed to be Wozniak's so-called
"proof" that relativity is "inconsistent?
Wozniak conflates a moving observer with a
stationary observer
A lie,
No, it's not a lie. Wozniak is projecting his
own dishonesty.
as expected from a relativistic idiot in
general and from Harrie especially,
And proof that Wozniak is the one who slanders
and insults.
one observer present here, a moving (wrt
Solar System) one.
Nope. The moving observer doesn't see two
different results.
W dniu 22.08.2024 o 19:56, gharnagel pisze:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:06:27 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 22.08.2024 o 18:47, gharnagel pisze:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 15:12:33 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
Proof here that Wozniak is the one who slanders.
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Is this supposed to be Wozniak's so-called
"proof" that relativity is "inconsistent?
Wozniak conflates a moving observer with a
stationary observer
A lie,
No, it's not a lie. Wozniak is projecting his
own dishonesty.
Yes, it is. There is just one observer in the
example.
as expected from a relativistic idiot in
general and from Harrie especially,
And proof that Wozniak is the one who slanders
and insults.
one observer present here, a moving (wrt
Solar System) one.
Nope. The moving observer doesn't see two
different results.
He doesn't see anything, he is gedanken,
you know, poor halfbrain.
The matter is not what he sees, the matter
is what the physics of your idiot guru
is predicting he would see, and it is
providing 2 denying itself values, because
it is inconsistent.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 18:23:07 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 22.08.2024 o 19:56, gharnagel pisze:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:06:27 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 22.08.2024 o 18:47, gharnagel pisze:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 15:12:33 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
Proof here that Wozniak is the one who slanders.
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Is this supposed to be Wozniak's so-called
"proof" that relativity is "inconsistent?
Wozniak conflates a moving observer with a
stationary observer
A lie,
No, it's not a lie. Wozniak is projecting his
own dishonesty.
Yes, it is. There is just one observer in the
example.
If there's only one observer, then there is no
observation of two intervals of time.
W dniu 23.08.2024 o 01:31, gharnagel pisze:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 18:23:07 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Yes, it is. There is just one observer in the
example.
If there's only one observer, then there is no
observation of two intervals of time.
Sure there is no observation. Like usually in a
gedanken.
There are still 2 denying themself predictions
of observation derivable
in the physics of your idiot guru.
That's because the moronic mumble of your
idiot guru was not even consistent.
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 4:27:34 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 23.08.2024 o 01:31, gharnagel pisze:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 18:23:07 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Yes, it is. There is just one observer in the
example.
If there's only one observer, then there is no
observation of two intervals of time.
Sure there is no observation. Like usually in a
gedanken.
Wozniak just asserted that there is ONE observer
and now that there is no observation, so HE is
being inconsistent.
There are still 2 denying themself predictions
of observation derivable
And he's being inconsistent again. And he's dead
wrong anyway: a thought experiment can have as
many observers as desired
one observer when, in fact, he has set up a sham
situation: arguing a definition against an
observation.
W dniu 23.08.2024 o 14:44, gharnagel pisze:
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 4:27:34 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 23.08.2024 o 01:31, gharnagel pisze:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 18:23:07 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Yes, it is. There is just one observer in the
example.
If there's only one observer, then there is no
observation of two intervals of time.
Sure there is no observation. Like usually in a
gedanken.
Wozniak just asserted that there is ONE observer
and now that there is no observation, so HE is
being inconsistent.
Harrie mumbles some delusions
like an idiot he is.
There are still 2 denying themself predictions
of observation derivable
And he's being inconsistent again. And he's dead
wrong anyway: a thought experiment can have as
many observers as desired
"As many as desired" is one in this case.
It's mine thought experiment so I know
for sure how many observers are desired
in it, it is one.
.. He is desiring only
one observer when, in fact, he has set up a sham
situation: arguing a definition against an
observation.
The thread is not about any observations. They
are irrelevant.
Its about claims of The Shit of your idiot guru,
spoken directly by the idiot or derivable other
way, for instance from definitions.
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 13:48:24 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 23.08.2024 o 14:44, gharnagel pisze:
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 4:27:34 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 23.08.2024 o 01:31, gharnagel pisze:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 18:23:07 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Yes, it is. There is just one observer in the
example.
If there's only one observer, then there is no
observation of two intervals of time.
Sure there is no observation. Like usually in a
gedanken.
Wozniak just asserted that there is ONE observer
and now that there is no observation, so HE is
being inconsistent.
Harrie mumbles some delusions
All that is needed is to look at what Wozniak wrote:
"There is just one observer"
"there is no observation"
to see who is mumbling and having delusions.
.. He is desiring only
one observer when, in fact, he has set up a sham
situation: arguing a definition against an
observation.
The thread is not about any observations. They
are irrelevant.
So if observations are discounted, then the moving
observer is irrelevant.
That removes the 99766
observed by the moving observer
Its about claims of The Shit of your idiot guru,
spoken directly by the idiot or derivable other
way, for instance from definitions.
Disregarding Wozniak's blatant and despicable
insults and slanders, Einstein said t' <> t, not
W dniu 23.08.2024 o 20:48, gharnagel pisze:
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 13:48:24 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Harrie mumbles some delusions
All that is needed is to look at what Wozniak wrote:
"There is just one observer"
"there is no observation"
to see who is mumbling and having delusions.
It is my example. One observer, no
observations.
Period.
Sorry, trash.
The thread is not about any observations. They
are irrelevant.
So if observations are discounted, then the moving
observer is irrelevant.
The opinion of an idiot is insignificant.
Sorry, trash.
That removes the 99766
observed by the moving observer
Harrie, even such an idiot should
understand, that if your idiot guru's
physics is able to PREDICT a result of
an observation - it must do it
before, and if it is done before -
the observation itself can't be
necessary for that.
Its about claims of The Shit of your idiot guru,
spoken directly by the idiot or derivable other
way, for instance from definitions.
Disregarding Wozniak's blatant and despicable
insults and slanders, Einstein said t' <> t, not
And the definition he had in his absurd
physics derived the opposite.
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 19:13:41 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 23.08.2024 o 20:48, gharnagel pisze:
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 13:48:24 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Harrie mumbles some delusions
All that is needed is to look at what Wozniak wrote:
"There is just one observer"
"there is no observation"
to see who is mumbling and having delusions.
It is my example. One observer, no
observations.
Period.
Wozniak forgets to include one definition, also.
A definition meant to include only the earth, not
some traveler moving at relativistic speed.
The opinion of an idiot is insignificant.
It's not an "opinion"that Wozniak lied, as proven by
his own words.
Is there "one observer" or are there
"no observations"?
And Wozniak shows again that HE is the insulter-in-chief
and supreme slanderer of this group.
That removes the 99766
observed by the moving observer
Harrie, even such an idiot should
understand, that if your idiot guru's
physics is able to PREDICT a result of
an observation - it must do it
before, and if it is done before -
the observation itself can't be
necessary for that.
So Wozniak doubles down on claiming that observations
are unnecessary :-))
So who confirms that the prediction
is confirmed?
I can predict that Wozniak is a turtle.
And the definition he had in his absurd
physics derived the opposite.
No, that wasn't a definition.
validly derived by assuming certain reasonable
postulates. The postulates and the conclusions have
been confirmed by copious experiments.
W dniu 24.08.2024 o 04:01, gharnagel pisze:
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 19:13:41 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
It is my example. One observer, no
observations.
Period.
Wozniak forgets to include one definition, also.
A definition meant to include only the earth, not
some traveler moving at relativistic speed.
A lie, of course,
as expected from a relativistic idiot.
No such limitations were included into the definition
of second in the physics of your idiot guru.
You've fabricated them ad hoc.
The opinion of an idiot is insignificant.
It's not an "opinion "that Wozniak lied, as proven by
his own words.
This is not an opinion indeed, this is an
impudent lie, as expected from a
relativistic idiot. The word "opinion"
I used was referring to something else.
Is there "one observer" or are there
"no observations"?
Again, I'm talking to an idiot
so repeating must be included.
One observer, no observations.
And Wozniak shows again that HE is the
insulter-in-chief and supreme slanderer
Talking to relativistic scumbags like Harmagel
I must descend partially to their level, but
it's just partially. I'm not slandering.
Harrie, even such an idiot should
understand, that if your idiot guru's
physics is able to PREDICT a result of
an observation - it must do it
before, and if it is done before -
the observation itself can't be
necessary for that.
So Wozniak doubles down on claiming that
observations are unnecessary :-))
I'm not, I'm just claiming they're not
necessary in my example.
So who confirms that the prediction
is confirmed?
An inconsistent prediction, like that of
the physics of your idiot guru, can never
be confirmed.
I can predict that Wozniak is a turtle.
It's not a prediction, a prediction is
referring to the future, poor halfbrain.
And the definition he had in his absurd
physics derived the opposite.
No, that wasn't a definition.
Lies have short legs, poor trash.
So - what was the definition of
second in the physics of your idiot
guru (1905-his death)? Will you write
it? Let me guess, no,
you will just write more insults, more
lies, more slanders, as expected from
a relativistic scumbag.
It was a conclusion validly derived by
assuming certain reasonable postulates.
The postulates and the conclusions have
been confirmed by copious experiments.
Only such an idiot can believe such an
impudent lie, Harrie.
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 4:11:24 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 24.08.2024 o 04:01, gharnagel pisze:
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 19:13:41 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
It is my example. One observer, no
observations.
Period.
Wozniak forgets to include one definition, also.
A definition meant to include only the earth, not
some traveler moving at relativistic speed.
A lie, of course,
Nope, Wozniak is definitely wrong about this.
as expected from a relativistic idiot.
Wozniak demonstrates that he is the insulter-and
slanderer-in-chief once again.
No such limitations were included into the definition
of second in the physics of your idiot guru.
Saint Albert didn't define the second. Wozniak is dead
wrong again.
An inconsistent prediction, like that of
the physics of your idiot guru, can never
be confirmed.
Rather, who confirms that the prediction
is refuted, as Wozniak claims?
It's not a prediction, a prediction is
referring to the future, poor halfbrain.
Pure obfuscation. The thought experiment
said, "Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length of
solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?"
The observer "IS MEASURING" -- not WILL
measure.
So, since I predict that Wozniak is a
turtle,
Lies have short legs, poor trash.
So - what was the definition of
second in the physics of your idiot
guru (1905-his death)? Will you write
it? Let me guess, no,
Wozniak's guess is wrong. I gave the
definition of the second, and it wasn't
from Saint Albert.
W dniu 24.08.2024 o 14:08, gharnagel pisze:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 4:11:24 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 24.08.2024 o 04:01, gharnagel pisze:
Wozniak forgets to include one definition, also.
A definition meant to include only the earth, not
some traveler moving at relativistic speed.
A lie, of course,
Nope, Wozniak is definitely wrong about this.
as expected from a relativistic idiot.
Wozniak demonstrates that he is the insulter-and
slanderer-in-chief once again.
No such limitations were included into the definition
of second in the physics of your idiot guru.
Saint Albert didn't define the second. Wozniak is dead
wrong again.
Of course he didn't, he was too stupid
for that.
So what? Will you be impudent enough to lie his physics
(1905-death) had no definition of a second?
An inconsistent prediction, like that of
the physics of your idiot guru, can never
be confirmed.
Rather, who confirms that the prediction
is refuted, as Wozniak claims?
I don't. A lie again.
It's not a prediction, a prediction is
referring to the future, poor halfbrain.
Pure obfuscation. The thought experimentsolar system is measuring the length of
said, "Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?"
The observer "IS MEASURING" -- not WILL
measure.
And the result will appear. Or maybe not,
if the observer screw it or get suddenly
killed.
So, since I predict that Wozniak is a
turtle,
It's not a prediction, a prediction is
referring to the future, poor halfbrain.
Lies have short legs, poor trash.
So - what was the definition of
second in the physics of your idiot
guru (1905-his death)? Will you write
it? Let me guess, no,
Wozniak's guess is wrong. I gave the
definition of the second, and it wasn't
from Saint Albert.
Exactly. It wasn't from the idiot and it
couldn't be a part of his absurd physics,
as it was concocted in 1960-ies.
Try again, poor halfbrain.
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 17:13:51 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 24.08.2024 o 14:08, gharnagel pisze:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 4:11:24 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 24.08.2024 o 04:01, gharnagel pisze:
Wozniak forgets to include one definition, also.
A definition meant to include only the earth, not
some traveler moving at relativistic speed.
A lie, of course,
Nope, Wozniak is definitely wrong about this.
as expected from a relativistic idiot.
Wozniak demonstrates that he is the insulter-and
slanderer-in-chief once again.
No such limitations were included into the definition
of second in the physics of your idiot guru.
Saint Albert didn't define the second. Wozniak is dead
wrong again.
Of course he didn't, he was too stupid
for that.
So Wozniak asserts that anyone who doesn't define the second
is stupid.
Why would a theoretical physicist need to define a second?
W dniu 24.08.2024 o 23:05, gharnagel pisze:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 17:13:51 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 24.08.2024 o 14:08, gharnagel pisze:
Saint Albert didn't define the second. Wozniak is dead
wrong again.
Of course he didn't, he was too stupid
for that.
So Wozniak asserts that anyone who doesn't define the second
is stupid.
A stinky lie/slander, of course, again.
So, what was the definition? Will you
finally write it,
trash?
No. You will only write more insults,
more lies, more slanders. And more
completely idiotic dodges.
Why would a theoretical physicist need to define a second?
Because the existing definition was killing his idiotic
delusions immediately.
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 4:34:01 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 24.08.2024 o 23:05, gharnagel pisze:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 17:13:51 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 24.08.2024 o 14:08, gharnagel pisze:
Saint Albert didn't define the second. Wozniak is dead
wrong again.
Of course he didn't, he was too stupid
for that.
So Wozniak asserts that anyone who doesn't define the second
is stupid.
A stinky lie/slander, of course, again.
:)) Wozniak is caught in his dishonesty again and projects it
away from himself. It is a logical extension of what he
deviously asserted: Einstein was to stupid to define the
second; therefore, anyone who doesn't define the second is
stupid.
So, what was the definition? Will you
finally write it,
Wozniak is grasping at straws again in a sorry attempt to
distract from the elephant in the room. I gave him a link
to the definition of the day, which he dishonestly deleted,
Because the existing definition was killing his idiotic
delusions immediately.
But Saint Albert didn't define the second.
His assertion that relativity is inconsistent because it
predicts that a moving observer would see a day on earth
as 99766 seconds instead of 86400
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 14:24:49 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 25.08.2024 o 16:02, gharnagel pisze:
:)) Wozniak is caught in his dishonesty again and projects it
away from himself. It is a logical extension of what he
deviously asserted: Einstein was to stupid to define the
second; therefore, anyone who doesn't define the second is
stupid.
No, Harmagel. It's not any logical extension,
it's just utterly ridiculous claim o a
cornered idiot.
Wozniak is projecting again, He's the one that has painted
himself into a corner.
So, what was the definition
I gave it
Harmagel is grasping at straws again in a sorry attempt to
distract from the elephant in the room.
This is infantile copycatting. Not worthy of any more response.
I wasn't asking about the current definition of second,
That's the only one there is.
I was asking about the definition valid in his idiotic
physiccs in 1905 and up to the death of his idiot guru.
Will you finally write it?
Of course, not.
Because there is no such thing.
His assertion that relativity is inconsistent because it
predicts that a moving observer would see a day on earth
as 99766 seconds instead of 86400
Not "instead" but "both". That's what inconsistency
is about.
Wozniak is lying again and studiously ignoring the peanut
butter barf all over himself.
He is assuming that Newtonian physics with its universal
time is true,
W dniu 25.08.2024 o 16:02, gharnagel pisze:
:)) Wozniak is caught in his dishonesty again and projects it
away from himself. It is a logical extension of what he
deviously asserted: Einstein was to stupid to define the
second; therefore, anyone who doesn't define the second is
stupid.
No, Harmagel. It's not any logical extension,
it's just utterly ridiculous claim o a
cornered idiot.
So, what was the definition
Wozniak is grasping at straws again in a sorry attempt to
distract from the elephant in the room. I gave him a link
to the definition of the day, which he dishonestly deleted,
Harmagel is grasping at straws again in a sorry attempt to
distract from the elephant in the room.
I wasn't asking about the current definition of second,
I was asking about the definition valid in his idiotic
physiccs in 1905 and up to the death of his idiot guru.
Will you finally write it?
Of course, not.
Instead you will write more insults,
more slanders, more idiotic dodges.
But Saint Albert didn't define the second.
Of course he didn't. Poor idiot was too
stupid.
His assertion that relativity is inconsistent because it
predicts that a moving observer would see a day on earth
as 99766 seconds instead of 86400
Not "instead" but "both". That's what inconsistency
is about.
So, the physics of your idiot guru had no definition
of second? Will you be impudent enough for such
an absurd lie, trash?
Le 25/08/2024 à 17:38, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
...
So, the physics of your idiot guru had no definition
of second? Will you be impudent enough for such
an absurd lie, trash?
Some part of physics may need a definition of second,
some other parts don't. Relativity (or Newtonian physics)
doesn't.
W dniu 25.08.2024 o 22:54, Python pisze:
Le 25/08/2024 à 17:38, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
...
So, the physics of your idiot guru had no definition
of second? Will you be impudent enough for such
an absurd lie, trash?
Some part of physics may need a definition of second,
some other parts don't. Relativity (or Newtonian physics)
doesn't.
If you're asserting, it must be true...
W dniu 25.08.2024 o 17:21, gharnagel pisze:
Not quite. The older ones are also mentioned
there.
So, the physics of your idiot guru had no definition
of second? Will you be impudent enough for such
an absurd lie, trash?
Wozniak is lying again and studiously ignoring the peanut
butter barf all over himself.
He is assuming that Newtonian physics with its universal
time is true,
I'm not assuming anything right now,
I apply the inconsistent assumptions of the physics
of your idiot guru and derive 2 denying
themself predictions. I can do it, because
the mumble of your idiot guru was not even
consistent.
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 15:38:53 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 25.08.2024 o 17:21, gharnagel pisze:
Not quite. The older ones are also mentioned
there.
But not asked about. Irrelevant, anyway.
So, the physics of your idiot guru had no definition
of second? Will you be impudent enough for such
an absurd lie, trash?
Theoretical physicists don't define seconds.
I apply the inconsistent assumptions of the physics
of your idiot guru and derive 2 denying
themself predictions. I can do it, because
the mumble of your idiot guru was not even
consistent.
Wozniak is daydreaming. He has assumed his conclusion > based on Newtonian time assumption
Le 25/08/2024 à 23:08, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 25.08.2024 o 22:54, Python pisze:
Le 25/08/2024 à 17:38, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
...
So, the physics of your idiot guru had no definition
of second? Will you be impudent enough for such
an absurd lie, trash?
Some part of physics may need a definition of second,
some other parts don't. Relativity (or Newtonian physics)
doesn't.
If you're asserting, it must be true...
Feel free to check by yourself.
W dniu 26.08.2024 o 04:56, gharnagel pisze:
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 15:38:53 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
So, the physics of your idiot guru had no definition
of second? Will you be impudent enough for such
an absurd lie, trash?
Theoretical physicists don't define seconds.
So, the physics of your idiot guru had no definition
of second? Will you be impudent enough for such
an absurd lie, trash?
Just stop dodging and changing the subject.
I apply the inconsistent assumptions of the physics
of your idiot guru and derive 2 denying
themself predictions. I can do it, because
the mumble of your idiot guru was not even
consistent.
Wozniak is daydreaming. He has assumed his conclusion
based on Newtonian time assumption
Harmagel is lying, as expected from a
relativistic piece of shit.
I apply the definition of second valid in his moronic
physics (the whole of it, including The Shit of his
idiot guru) up to 1960-ies.
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 4:45:24 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 26.08.2024 o 04:56, gharnagel pisze:
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 15:38:53 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
So, the physics of your idiot guru had no definition
of second? Will you be impudent enough for such
an absurd lie, trash?
Theoretical physicists don't define seconds.
So, the physics of your idiot guru had no definition
of second? Will you be impudent enough for such
an absurd lie, trash?
Just stop dodging and changing the subject.
Repeating falsehoods don't make them true.
Harmagel is lying, as expected from a
relativistic piece of shit.
Wozniak is projecting his own dishonesty, and insulting
and slandering, which he also projects.
I apply the definition of second valid in his moronic
physics (the whole of it, including The Shit of his
idiot guru) up to 1960-ies.
Wozniak is in denial of reality.
misguided, dead wrong because he is basing it on
Newtonian (universal) time
W dniu 26.08.2024 o 13:24, gharnagel pisze:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 4:45:24 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
So, the physics of your idiot guru had no definition
of second? Will you be impudent enough for such
an absurd lie, trash?
Just stop dodging and changing the subject.
Repeating falsehoods don't make them true.
So, the physics of your idiot guru had no definition
of second? Will you be impudent enough for such
an absurd lie, trash?
I apply the definition of second valid in his moronic
physics (the whole of it, including The Shit of his
idiot guru) up to 1960-ies.
Wozniak is in denial of reality.
The one Harmagel has deleted GPS clocks
from?
His assertion is misguided, dead wrong because he
is basing it on Newtonian (universal) time
A lie,
as expected from a piece of relativistic
shit.
I'm only applying the definition of second,
valid in the whole physics (including The
Shit of your idiot guru) up to 1960-ies.
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:19:02 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 26.08.2024 o 13:24, gharnagel pisze:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 4:45:24 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
So, the physics of your idiot guru had no definition
of second? Will you be impudent enough for such
an absurd lie, trash?
Just stop dodging and changing the subject.
Repeating falsehoods don't make them true.
So, the physics of your idiot guru had no definition
of second? Will you be impudent enough for such
an absurd lie, trash?
Copying and pasting falsehoods seems to be Wozniak's
stock in trade.
I apply the definition of second valid in his moronic
physics (the whole of it, including The Shit of his
idiot guru) up to 1960-ies.
Wozniak is in denial of reality.
The one Harmagel has deleted GPS clocks
from?
Wozniak is being deceitful since the problem he posed
His assertion is misguided, dead wrong because he
is basing it on Newtonian (universal) time
A lie,
Nope. The only way Wozniak can argue that 86400
seconds per day is valid for the moving observer is
by asserting Newtonian (universal) time.
I'm only applying the definition of second,
valid in the whole physics (including The
Shit of your idiot guru) up to 1960-ies.
Wozniak is lying since he was informed that a day
on earth isn't a day on other planets, so 86400
seconds only refers to earth.
W dniu 26.08.2024 o 16:35, gharnagel pisze:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:19:02 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
So, the physics of your idiot guru had no definition
of second? Will you be impudent enough for such
an absurd lie, trash?
Copying and pasting falsehoods seems to be Wozniak's
stock in trade.
Desperate avoiding of answerring simple questions
seems to be Harmagel's stock in trade. Do you
think that the answer will change just because
of your refusing to spell it?
The one Harmagel has deleted GPS clocks
from?
Wozniak is being deceitful since the problem he posed
[added back in because Wozniak deleted it because he
found ti to be devastating to his false narrative]
had to do with an observer moving at c/s, which has
nothing to do with the GPS. Dishonest people try to
change the narrative when they realize their vacuous
assertions are refuted.
Oh, it's just a reminding that you're
a reality denying idiot, just like all
Einstein's worshippers.
The only way Wozniak can argue that 86400
seconds per day is valid for the moving observer
is by asserting Newtonian (universal) time.
A lie, as expected from a piece of
relativistic shit. It's a direct
consequence of a definition, valid
in your moronic physics up to 1960-ies,
and making the insane mumble of your
idiot guru not even a consistent one.
I'm only applying the definition of second,
valid in the whole physics (including The
Shit of your idiot guru) up to 1960-ies.
Wozniak is lying since he was informed that a day
on earth isn't a day on other planets, so 86400
seconds only refers to earth.
Harmagel is lying since he knows very well
that my example is about measuring Earth's
day.
Nothing unexpected from a fanatic of The
Shit, of course.
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 15:00:01 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 26.08.2024 o 16:35, gharnagel pisze:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:19:02 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
So, the physics of your idiot guru had no definition
of second? Will you be impudent enough for such
an absurd lie, trash?
Copying and pasting falsehoods seems to be Wozniak's
stock in trade.
Desperate avoiding of answerring simple questions
seems to be Harmagel's stock in trade. Do you
think that the answer will change just because
of your refusing to spell it?
The only "questions" Wozniak asks are dishonest ones,
Wozniak is being deceitful since the problem he posed
[added back in because Wozniak deleted it because he
found ti to be devastating to his false narrative]
had to do with an observer moving at c/s, which has
nothing to do with the GPS. Dishonest people try to
change the narrative when they realize their vacuous
assertions are refuted.
Oh, it's just a reminding that you're
a reality denying idiot, just like all
Einstein's worshippers.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of
the losers. -- Socrates
I'm only applying the definition of second,
valid in the whole physics (including The
Shit of your idiot guru) up to 1960-ies.
Wozniak is lying since he was informed that a day
on earth isn't a day on other planets, so 86400
seconds only refers to earth.
Harmagel is lying since he knows very well
that my example is about measuring Earth's
day.
Wozniak is lying again because he claimed earlier
no measurements were made.
a prediction. Wozniak is definitely a turtle now
because I predicted it then. Does he now remember
now? :-))
Nothing unexpected from a fanatic of The
Shit, of course.
Nothing unexpected from a fanatical congenital
liar and slanderer who cowardly runs away from
facing the proof that his assertions are vacuous
nonsense:
And he continues to lie by omission because he
can't defend his flimsy assertions by the clod,
hard facts which refute them:
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2014.15970
"Experiments at a particle accelerator in Germany confirm
that time moves slower for a moving clock than for a
stationary one."
And THAT's why the moving observer would observe a day on
W dniu 27.08.2024 o 16:31, gharnagel pisze:...
Wozniak is pooping nonsense again. His assertion only proves
that he is NOT an engineer, otherwise he would admit that the
GPS was ENGINEERED
All clocks ever were engineered, nothing special
about that
"Experiments at a particle accelerator in Germany confirm
that time moves slower for a moving clock than for a
stationary one."
A very impudent lie,
And now he lies by commission because he is incapable of
On the other hand, we have GPS, anyone can check, moving
clocks are keeping synchronization.
Wozniak is pooping nonsense again. His assertion only proves
that he is NOT an engineer, otherwise he would admit that the
GPS was ENGINEERED
W dniu 27.08.2024 o 06:23, gharnagel pisze:
And now he lies by commission because he
can't defend his flimsy assertions by the clod,
hard facts which refute them:
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2014.15970
"Experiments at a particle accelerator in Germany confirm
that time moves slower for a moving clock than for a
stationary one."
A very impudent lie,
believable only by idiots like you; no moving clocks were
involved - relativistic idiots have only fabricated them.
On the other hand, we have GPS, anyone can check, moving
clocks are keeping synchronization.
Let's take the proper time of accelerated objects. I am sure of my move, because everything is of great theoretical coherence from beginning to
end when I speak of RR. Physicists are not capable of it, but they will
NEVER say it, they prefer to insult and try to discredit.
Le 27/08/2024 à 17:15, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
...
Let's take the proper time of accelerated objects. I am sure of my move,
because everything is of great theoretical coherence from beginning to
end when I speak of RR. Physicists are not capable of it, but they will
NEVER say it, they prefer to insult and try to discredit.
A proof (several proofs as a matter of fact) that your claim violates
the principle of Relativity is in no way an insult.
It is a discredit, maybe, but that's your fault.
Le 27/08/2024 à 17:20, Python a écrit :
Le 27/08/2024 à 17:15, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
...
Let's take the proper time of accelerated objects. I am sure of my
move, because everything is of great theoretical coherence from
beginning to end when I speak of RR. Physicists are not capable of
it, but they will NEVER say it, they prefer to insult and try to
discredit.
A proof (several proofs as a matter of fact) that your claim violates
the principle of Relativity is in no way an insult.
It is a discredit, maybe, but that's your fault.
What proof?
[snip babbling]
No clocks were ever accelerated in any accelerator.
It's an impudent lie believable only by fanatic idiots.
Anyway, your pathetic lies of zillions of
experiments allegedly confirming the pathetic
mumble of your idiot guru are completely irrelevant
for this thread.
The thread is about the inconsistent assumptions
of his physics and inconsistent conclusions
derivable from it. You're too dumb to understand
even that, but still it is.
Le 27/08/2024 à 17:31, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 27/08/2024 à 17:20, Python a écrit :
Le 27/08/2024 à 17:15, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
...
Let's take the proper time of accelerated objects. I am sure of my
move, because everything is of great theoretical coherence from
beginning to end when I speak of RR. Physicists are not capable of
it, but they will NEVER say it, they prefer to insult and try to
discredit.
A proof (several proofs as a matter of fact) that your claim violates
the principle of Relativity is in no way an insult.
It is a discredit, maybe, but that's your fault.
What proof?
Putting your head in the sand won't help Richard.
Le 27/08/2024 à 16:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 27.08.2024 o 16:31, gharnagel pisze:...
Wozniak is pooping nonsense again. His assertion only proves
that he is NOT an engineer, otherwise he would admit that the
GPS was ENGINEERED
All clocks ever were engineered, nothing special
about that
Really?
You wrote numerous times that clocks are not physical
devices.
Le 27/08/2024 à 17:38, Python a écrit :
Le 27/08/2024 à 17:31, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 27/08/2024 à 17:20, Python a écrit :
Le 27/08/2024 à 17:15, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
...
Let's take the proper time of accelerated objects. I am sure of my
move, because everything is of great theoretical coherence from
beginning to end when I speak of RR. Physicists are not capable of
it, but they will NEVER say it, they prefer to insult and try to
discredit.
A proof (several proofs as a matter of fact) that your claim violates
the principle of Relativity is in no way an insult.
It is a discredit, maybe, but that's your fault.
What proof?
Putting your head in the sand won't help Richard.
Ce n'est PAS une réponse.
You loves pdfs, don't you?
Le 27/08/2024 à 16:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
No clocks were ever accelerated in any accelerator.
It's an impudent lie believable only by fanatic idiots.
Anyway, your pathetic lies of zillions of
experiments allegedly confirming the pathetic
mumble of your idiot guru are completely irrelevant
for this thread.
The thread is about the inconsistent assumptions
of his physics and inconsistent conclusions
derivable from it. You're too dumb to understand
even that, but still it is.
That's right, you're absolutely right, and no clock has ever been placed
in accelerators.
Which presents a huge experimental problem.
The thread is about the inconsistent assumptions
of his physics and inconsistent conclusions
derivable from it. You're too dumb to understand
even that, but still it is.
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 14:51:20 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
The thread is about the inconsistent assumptions
of his physics and inconsistent conclusions
derivable from it. You're too dumb to understand
even that, but still it is.
Wozniak is pooping nonsense again. His assertions only prove
that he is NOT an engineer, otherwise he would admit that the
GPS was ENGINEERED
He doesn't want the moving observer to have a clock
but then
he brings in an irrelevant GPS clock, proving again that his
currency is hypocrisy. He claims that the GPS "proves" that
Le 27/08/2024 à 17:20, Python a écrit :
Le 27/08/2024 à 17:15, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
...
Let's take the proper time of accelerated objects. I am sure of my
move, because everything is of great theoretical coherence from
beginning to end when I speak of RR. Physicists are not capable of
it, but they will NEVER say it, they prefer to insult and try to
discredit.
A proof (several proofs as a matter of fact) that your claim violates
the principle of Relativity is in no way an insult.
It is a discredit, maybe, but that's your fault.
What proof?
I am the only one, all relativist scientists combined, to have no
internal theoretical contradiction (works in apparent speeds, fatal
symmetry of reciprocities), and the only one who has never been found
wanting by any experiment for 40 years.
What proof? Theoretical? Experimental?
Jean-Pierre, be serious.
The physicists at CERN measures that the proton 'rotates'
11.25 thousand times per second, you "tell them that
the proton rotates 78 million times per second."
Don't tell me you don't understand that the proton rotates
11.25 thousand times per second in the laboratory frame but
78 million times per second in the proton frame.
This is called time dilation.
W dniu 27.08.2024 o 16:56, Python pisze:
Le 27/08/2024 à 16:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 27.08.2024 o 16:31, gharnagel pisze:...
Wozniak is pooping nonsense again. His assertion only proves
that he is NOT an engineer, otherwise he would admit that the
GPS was ENGINEERED
All clocks ever were engineered, nothing special
about that
Really?
Really. Do you have a different opinion
You wrote numerous times that clocks are not physical
devices.
And instead some delusional "Laws of Nature"
announced by your bunch of religious maniacs
they're driven by ergonomics.
Le 27/08/2024 à 16:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
No clocks were ever accelerated in any accelerator.
It's an impudent lie believable only by fanatic idiots.
Anyway, your pathetic lies of zillions of
experiments allegedly confirming the pathetic
mumble of your idiot guru are completely irrelevant
for this thread.
The thread is about the inconsistent assumptions
of his physics and inconsistent conclusions
derivable from it. You're too dumb to understand
even that, but still it is.
That's right, you're absolutely right, and no clock has
ever been placed in accelerators.
Which presents a huge experimental problem.
Le 27/08/2024 à 18:14, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 27.08.2024 o 16:56, Python pisze:
Le 27/08/2024 à 16:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 27.08.2024 o 16:31, gharnagel pisze:...
Wozniak is pooping nonsense again. His assertion only proves
that he is NOT an engineer, otherwise he would admit that the
GPS was ENGINEERED
All clocks ever were engineered, nothing special
about that
Really?
Really. Do you have a different opinion
I asked.
You wrote numerous times that clocks are not physical
devices.
And instead some delusional "Laws of Nature"
announced by your bunch of religious maniacs
they're driven by ergonomics.
Are clocks physical devices or not?
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 15:15:47 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 27/08/2024 à 16:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
No clocks were ever accelerated in any accelerator.
It's an impudent lie believable only by fanatic idiots.
This is another of Wozniak's multitudinous prevarications.
He tacitly accepts atomic clocks when he asserts his false
GPS t' = t baloney (t' is the time kept by the satellite
clock which is NOT t by design). Atomic clocks keep time
by Cs-133 atoms, so atoms are clocks.
Anyway, your pathetic lies of zillions of
experiments allegedly confirming the pathetic
mumble of your idiot guru are completely irrelevant
for this thread.
Nope, Wozniak is doubly lying again: (1) Only a demented
fool or a congenital liar would deny the overwhelming
evidence for SR
thread
No, it presents a mental problem of a magnitude presented
in the movie, "They Might Be Giants." Wozniak is Justin
Playfair and YOU are Dr. Watson. You've been taken in,
just like Watson was.
https://psychcentral.com/blog/grandiosity-and-delusion-grandeur#definition
boast about real or exaggerated accomplishments
consider yourself more talented or intelligent than others
dismiss or try to one-up the achievements of others
W dniu 28.08.2024 o 02:36, Python pisze:
Le 27/08/2024 à 18:14, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 27.08.2024 o 16:56, Python pisze:
Le 27/08/2024 à 16:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 27.08.2024 o 16:31, gharnagel pisze:...
Wozniak is pooping nonsense again. His assertion only proves
that he is NOT an engineer, otherwise he would admit that the
GPS was ENGINEERED
All clocks ever were engineered, nothing special
about that
Really?
Really. Do you have a different opinion
I asked.
I answerred. And asked.
You wrote numerous times that clocks are not physical
devices.
And instead some delusional "Laws of Nature"
announced by your bunch of religious maniacs
they're driven by ergonomics.
Are clocks physical devices or not?
Just in a part.
The key factor determining
their behaviour remains outside the world of
your pretty little formulas.
Le 28/08/2024 à 06:17, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 28.08.2024 o 02:36, Python pisze:
Le 27/08/2024 à 18:14, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 27.08.2024 o 16:56, Python pisze:
Le 27/08/2024 à 16:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 27.08.2024 o 16:31, gharnagel pisze:...
Wozniak is pooping nonsense again. His assertion only proves
that he is NOT an engineer, otherwise he would admit that the
GPS was ENGINEERED
All clocks ever were engineered, nothing special
about that
Really?
Really. Do you have a different opinion
I asked.
I answerred. And asked.
You wrote numerous times that clocks are not physical
devices.
And instead some delusional "Laws of Nature"
announced by your bunch of religious maniacs
they're driven by ergonomics.
Are clocks physical devices or not?
Just in a part.
Which part is not then?
The key factor determining
their behaviour remains outside the world of
your pretty little formulas.
And this factor is... ?
W dniu 28.08.2024 o 06:08, gharnagel pisze:
Le 27/08/2024 à 16:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
No clocks were ever accelerated in any accelerator.
It's an impudent lie believable only by fanatic idiots.
This is another of Wozniak's multitudinous prevarications.
He tacitly accepts atomic clocks when he asserts his false
GPS t' = t baloney (t' is the time kept by the satellite
clock which is NOT t by design). Atomic clocks keep time
by Cs-133 atoms, so atoms are clocks.
No they are not, you simply don't know
what a clock is, just like most (if not
all) of relativistic idiots. https://www.istockphoto.com/pl/search/2/image-film?phrase=clock
And - anyone can check GPS, or TAI, or UTC
- atomic clocks don't keep "time by
Cs-133 atom", they keep something else.
Anyway, your pathetic lies of zillions of
experiments allegedly confirming the pathetic
mumble of your idiot guru are completely irrelevant
for this thread.
Nope, Wozniak is doubly lying again: (1) Only a demented
fool or a congenital liar would deny the overwhelming
evidence for SR
Or rather, any relativistic doggie will spit
at anyone not kneeling before his beloved
idiocies with all its might.
and (2) SR cannot be irrelevant for this thread
But the experiments allegedly confirming The Shit are.
where the OP was about what SR predicts for an
observer moving at c/2.
The thread is about its inconsistent assumptions and
inconsistent conclusions derivable from them.
Your precious experiments are irrelevant here.
No, it presents a mental problem of a magnitude presented
in the movie, "They Might Be Giants." Wozniak is Justin
Playfair and Hachel are Dr. Watson. Hachel has been taken
in, just like Watson was.
https://psychcentral.com/blog/grandiosity-and-delusion-grandeur#definition
boast about real or exaggerated accomplishments
consider yourself more talented or intelligent than others
dismiss or try to one-up the achievements of others
fail to recognize that your actions could harm others
Like - pretending that GPS clock are not real,
as they don't match one's sick delusions of "reality".
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 5:42:04 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 28.08.2024 o 06:08, gharnagel pisze:
Le 27/08/2024 à 16:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
No clocks were ever accelerated in any accelerator.
It's an impudent lie believable only by fanatic idiots.
This is another of Wozniak's multitudinous prevarications.
He tacitly accepts atomic clocks when he asserts his false
GPS t' = t baloney (t' is the time kept by the satellite
clock which is NOT t by design). Atomic clocks keep time
by Cs-133 atoms, so atoms are clocks.
No they are not, you simply don't know
what a clock is, just like most (if not
all) of relativistic idiots.
https://www.istockphoto.com/pl/search/2/image-film?phrase=clock
Wozniak lacks sufficient vision and is woefully ignorant of
the information he worships:
https://www.britannica.com/technology/atomic-clock
And - anyone can check GPS, or TAI, or UTC
- atomic clocks don't keep "time by
Cs-133 atom", they keep something else.
Wozzie keeps something else: it's called lying.
Or rather, any relativistic doggie will spit
at anyone not kneeling before his beloved
idiocies with all its might.
Woxniak is projecting his own despicable behavior as he
insults and slanders his way through his so-called life
where the OP was about what SR predicts for an
observer moving at c/2.
So experiments are the sine qua non of the validity of
any theory,
So L'il Wozzie can conclude assumptions are inconsistent
without examining them?
Like - pretending that GPS clock are not real,
No one is saying that.
W dniu 28.08.2024 o 14:54, gharnagel pisze:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 5:42:04 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 28.08.2024 o 06:08, gharnagel pisze:
Le 27/08/2024 à 16:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
No clocks were ever accelerated in any accelerator.
It's an impudent lie believable only by fanatic idiots.
This is another of Wozniak's multitudinous prevarications.
He tacitly accepts atomic clocks when he asserts his false
GPS t' = t baloney (t' is the time kept by the satellite
clock which is NOT t by design). Atomic clocks keep time
by Cs-133 atoms, so atoms are clocks.
No they are not, you simply don't know
what a clock is, just like most (if not
all) of relativistic idiots. https://www.istockphoto.com/pl/search/2/image-film?phrase=clock
Wozniak lacks sufficient vision and is woefully ignorant of
the information he worships:
https://www.britannica.com/technology/atomic-clock
Harmagel is lying and slandering withaut any
basement, as usual. Nothing changes, https://www.istockphoto.com/pl/search/2/image-film?phrase=clock
clocks are like that, an atom is not.
And - anyone can check GPS, or TAI, or UTC
- atomic clocks don't keep "time by
Cs-133 atom", they keep something else.
Wozzie keeps something else: it's called lying.
Not the first Harrie's demonstration
of denying the reality.
Or rather, any relativistic doggie will spit
at anyone not kneeling before his beloved
idiocies with all its might.
Woxniak is projecting his own despicable behavior as he
insults and slanders his way through his so-called life
Harmagel is projecting his own despicable behavior as he
insults and slanders his way through his so-called life
where the OP was about what SR predicts for an
observer moving at c/2.
So experiments are the sine qua non of the validity of
any theory,
They are not,
but people much wiser than you made the mistake too.
Anyway, you don't need them when the theory is inconsistent,
like the mumble of your idiot guru was.
So L'il Wozzie can conclude assumptions are inconsistent
without examining them?
Assumptions are inconsistent when they give
some conclusions denying each other,
Like - pretending that GPS clock are not real,
No one is saying that.
But some idiot was saying that.
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 13:55:24 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 28.08.2024 o 14:54, gharnagel pisze:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 5:42:04 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 28.08.2024 o 06:08, gharnagel pisze:
Le 27/08/2024 à 16:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
No clocks were ever accelerated in any accelerator.
It's an impudent lie believable only by fanatic idiots.
This is another of Wozniak's multitudinous prevarications.
He tacitly accepts atomic clocks when he asserts his false
GPS t' = t baloney (t' is the time kept by the satellite
clock which is NOT t by design). Atomic clocks keep time
by Cs-133 atoms, so atoms are clocks.
No they are not, you simply don't know
what a clock is, just like most (if not
all) of relativistic idiots.
https://www.istockphoto.com/pl/search/2/image-film?phrase=clock
Wozniak lacks sufficient vision and is woefully ignorant of
the information he worships:
https://www.britannica.com/technology/atomic-clock
Harmagel is lying and slandering withaut any
basement, as usual. Nothing changes,
https://www.istockphoto.com/pl/search/2/image-film?phrase=clock
clocks are like that, an atom is not.
So L'il Wozzie-boy, self-proclaimed information
guru, says I'm lying and slandering because I
provided a link to the information in britannica.
And - anyone can check GPS, or TAI, or UTC
- atomic clocks don't keep "time by
Cs-133 atom", they keep something else.
Wozzie keeps something else: it's called lying.
Not the first Harrie's demonstration
of denying the reality.
That's right, not the first, because I haven't done
so even once.
but people much wiser than you made the mistake too.
So it's a mistake to check the validity of a theory with
experiments?
Anyway, you don't need them when the theory is inconsistent,
like the mumble of your idiot guru was.
Says the congenital liar and denier of reality.
So L'il Wozzie can conclude assumptions are inconsistent
without examining them?
Assumptions are inconsistent when they give
some conclusions denying each other,
Which doesn't happen with relativity.
No one is saying that.
But some idiot was saying that.
Wozzie-liar
W dniu 28.08.2024 o 17:02, gharnagel pisze:
So L'il Wozzie-boy, self-proclaimed information
guru, says I'm lying and slandering because I
provided a link to the information in britannica.
A lie and slander again, I say it, but for another
reason.
That's right, not the first, because I haven't done
so even once.
You announced GPS clocks not real
as they didn't fit your sick
delusions olf "reality". Google
keeps record, sorry, trash.
So it's a mistake to check the validity of a theory with
experiments?
Yes. Experiments are - really - projecting
the beliefs of the experimentist. Nothing
you could comprehend, of course.
Assumptions are inconsistent when they give
some conclusions denying each other,
Which doesn't happen with relativity.
Of course it does. I've pointed it directly.
No one is saying that.
But some idiot was saying that.
Wozzie-liar
Google keeps record,
sorry, trash.
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 15:47:54 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 28.08.2024 o 17:02, gharnagel pisze:
So L'il Wozzie-boy, self-proclaimed information
guru, says I'm lying and slandering because I
provided a link to the information in britannica.
A lie and slander again, I say it, but for another
reason.
"Reason" is something Wozzie doesn't have.
That's right, not the first, because I haven't done
so even once.
You announced GPS clocks not real
as they didn't fit your sick
delusions olf "reality". Google
keeps record, sorry, trash.
This shows that Wozzie-liar has been searching for the
truth his whole life, planning on putting it under arrest.
Yes. Experiments are - really - projecting
the beliefs of the experimentist. Nothing
you could comprehend, of course.
What is to be comprehended from this explosive bowel
movement is that Wozzie is a nihilistic misanthrope.
Assumptions are inconsistent when they give
some conclusions denying each other,
Which doesn't happen with relativity.
Of course it does. I've pointed it directly.
Wozzie has delusions of grandeur:
No one is saying that.
But some idiot was saying that.
Wozzie-liar
Google keeps record,
Nobody goes there anymore. But there is a record,
and the complete record is:
W dniu 28.08.2024 o 19:41, gharnagel pisze:
"Reason" is something Wozzie doesn't have.
This shows that Wozzie-liar has been searching for the
truth his whole life, planning on putting it under arrest.
Your barking and spitting changes nothing,
poor trash, google keeps record.
What is to be comprehended from this explosive bowel
movement is that Wozzie is a nihilistic misanthrope.
Nothing you could comprehend; as said.
Wozzie has delusions of grandeur:
Do I or don't I
- also irrelevant.
The physics of your idiot guru was predicting
both 86400s and 99766s for my case - simultaneously.
That means it was inconsistent.
Poor idiot Harrie was trying to announce GPS clocks
not real, cause it don't want to fit those moronic
prophesies of his idiot guru.
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 18:21:59 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 28.08.2024 o 19:41, gharnagel pisze:
"Reason" is something Wozzie doesn't have.
This shows that Wozzie-liar has been searching for the
truth his whole life, planning on putting it under arrest.
Your barking and spitting changes nothing,
poor trash, google keeps record.
Google groups is defunct.
What is to be comprehended from this explosive bowel
movement is that Wozzie is a nihilistic misanthrope.
Nothing you could comprehend; as said.
It's all of humanity that comprehends that Wozzie-liar
is abominable.
Wozzie has delusions of grandeur:
Do I or don't I
Oh, he definitely does.
- also irrelevant.
Wozzie-liar lies again. It's definitely relevant
because he is not competent to criticize relativity.
The physics of your idiot guru was predicting
both 86400s and 99766s for my case - simultaneously.
Well, no it wasn't.
86400 is a definition, not a prediction.
Relativity "predicts" that the moving observer would
calculate that the earth would appear to take 99766
seconds to make one revolution.
W dniu 28.08.2024 o 21:07, gharnagel pisze:
Google groups is defunct.
But it still keep record,
trash.
It's all of humanity that comprehends that Wozzie-liar
is abominable.
Wozzie-liar lies again. It's definitely relevant
because he is not competent to criticize relativity.
The physics of your idiot guru was predicting
both 86400s and 99766s for my case - simultaneously.
Well, no it wasn't.
Yes, it was.
86400 is a definition, not a prediction.
:)
So you know what the definition was, poor
trash?
Relativity "predicts" that the moving observer would
calculate that the earth would appear to take 99766
seconds to make one revolution.
And it predicted that measuring a day,
i.e. comparing it to 1/86400 of itself,
will give 86400.
By any observer, in any circumstances.
unless your idiot guru refuted basic arithmetics,
just like he refuted basic geometry later.
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 19:42:19 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 28.08.2024 o 21:07, gharnagel pisze:
Google groups is defunct.
But it still keep record,
Only the cold, dead old stuff.
It's all of humanity that comprehends that Wozzie-liar
is abominable.
Wozzie-liar lies again. It's definitely relevant
because he is not competent to criticize relativity.
The physics of your idiot guru was predicting
both 86400s and 99766s for my case - simultaneously.
Well, no it wasn't.
Yes, it was.
Wozzie lies again.
Relativity "predicts" that the moving observer would
calculate that the earth would appear to take 99766
seconds to make one revolution.
And it predicted that measuring a day,
Ah, but Wozzie-liar said there were no measurements.
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
“The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”
Too bad Wozzie is so stupid he doesn't realize "basic
geometry" was dethroned long before Einstein when the
earth was mapped using spherical geometry.
On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 4:17:50 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 29.08.2024 o 04:01, gharnagel pisze:
Only the cold, dead old stuff.
And including your tales of not real
GPS clocks.
ADHD Wozzie can't stay on the topic that HE started;
namely, the c/2 inertial observer.
Even such idiot should be able to understand
that if it is a prediction of the result of
measurement - it's before the measurement and
if it's before - there is no measurement.
Even demented Wozzie should be able to understand that
his assertions are complete nonsense and lies.
“The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”
And here it is - the mumble of your idiot guru
was not even consistent.
And here it is, Wozzie is lying again.
Riemann has invented his absurd in late XIX
centurey
And Wozzie-liar fibs again. Riemann died in 1866, before
Einstein was born. That's hardly the "late XIX century"
- do Harrie really try to persuade that no maps existed
before?
Wozzie is trying to deflect from the fact that his absurd
assertions have been demolished
Well, we have a direct witness -
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37157/37157-pdf.pdf
basic mathematics was still ruling in 1905.
???
Unhinged Wozzie-fool makes no sense.
W dniu 29.08.2024 o 04:01, gharnagel pisze:
Only the cold, dead old stuff.
And including your tales of not real
GPS clocks.
Wozzie lies again.
A fanatic lying idiot screaming "NOOOOO!!!", spitting
and waving his arms is changing nothing.
Ah, but Wozzie-liar said there were no measurements.
Even such idiot should be able to understand
that if it is a prediction of the result of
measurement - it's before the measurement and
if it's before - there is no measurement.
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Repeating your lies of zillions of experiments
allegedly confirming self-dentying nonsenses
of your idiot guru is still irrelevant for
the thread...
“The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”
And here it is - the mumble of your idiot guru
was not even consistent.
Too bad Wozzie is so stupid he doesn't realize "basic
geometry" was dethroned long before Einstein when the
earth was mapped using spherical geometry.
As usual - a very, very impudent lie.
Riemann has invented his absurd in late XIX
centurey
- do Harrie really try to persuade that no maps existed
before?
Well, we have a direct witness - https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37157/37157-pdf.pdf
basic mathematics was still ruling in 1905.
Of course, after your idiot guru announced it
false - his church immediately doctored tons
of evidence for that, including those absurd
of "maps are denying it".
W dniu 29.08.2024 o 14:15, gharnagel pisze:
On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 4:17:50 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
And including your tales of not real
GPS clocks.
ADHD Wozzie can't stay on the topic that HE started;
namely, the c/2 inertial observer.
You did your best to change it, buut with
but without serious successes.
Even such idiot should be able to understand
that if it is a prediction of the result of
measurement - it's before the measurement and
if it's before - there is no measurement.
Even demented Wozzie should be able to understand that
his assertions are complete nonsense and lies.
Really?
Were all those magnificient predictions of The Shit made
after the things they predicted happened?
“The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”
And here it is - the mumble of your idiot guru
was not even consistent.
And here it is, Wozzie is lying again.
Riemann has invented his absurd in late XIX
centurey
And Wozzie-liar fibs again. Riemann died in 1866, before
Einstein was born. That's hardly the "late XIX century"
Let it be - the middle XIX century.
So, did maps exist before he declared his
idiocies or not?
- do Harrie really try to persuade that no maps existed
before?
Wozzie is trying to deflect from the fact that his absurd
assertions have been demolished
One of the saints of The Shit's church
is writing it clearly: in 1905 no real
doubts against Euclidean geometry were
present.
Let it be - the middle XIX century.
So, did maps exist before he declared his
idiocies or not?
Yes, maps existed before he (i.e., mentally-disturbed Wozzie)
declared his idiocies.
So, did maps exist before he declared his
idiocies or not?
One of the saints of The Shit's church
is writing it clearly: in 1905 no real
doubts against Euclidean geometry were
present.
A total lie from ODD Wozzie who routinely denies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
W dniu 29.08.2024 o 15:32, gharnagel pisze:
Yes, maps existed before he (i.e., mentally-disturbed Wozzie)
declared his idiocies.
But did they exist before Riemann declared his idiocies?
If they did they change much after that?
A total lie from ODD Wozzie who routinely denies
valid evidence and creates excessive butt-wind.
Another example of reality denying by
Harrie, well known reality denier. You've
got a direct link to Poincare's text.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Your pathetic lies of zillions of experiments
allegedly confirming self-denying mumble
of your idiot guru are still irrelevant for
the thread.
On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 14:19:16 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 29.08.2024 o 15:32, gharnagel pisze:
Yes, maps existed before he (i.e., mentally-disturbed Wozzie)
declared his idiocies.
But did they exist before Riemann declared his idiocies?
If they did they change much after that?
I find it strange defending Riemannian geometry because I
don't really like the geometrical interpretation of physics.
I don't believe in the "fabric" of spacetime, although it's
a fairly accurate model of reality.
A total lie from ODD Wozzie who routinely denies
valid evidence and creates excessive butt-wind.
Another example of reality denying by
Harrie, well known reality denier. You've
got a direct link to Poincare's text.
"To doubt everything or to believe everything are
two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the
necessity of reflection.
"Instead of a summary condemnation we should examine with
the utmost care the rôle of hypothesis"
And Wozzie is the one who doubts
ODD-Wozzie somehow believes that his link refutes alternative
geometries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Your pathetic lies of zillions of experiments
allegedly confirming self-denying mumble
of your idiot guru are still irrelevant for
the thread.
ODD ADHD Wozzie is incompetent to read scientific text, let
alone understand it. He goes through life arrogantly
believing he has done great things, but he's the only one
in the whole world that thinks so.
W dniu 29.08.2024 o 18:37, gharnagel pisze:
On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 14:19:16 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
But did they exist before Riemann declared his idiocies?
If they did they change much after that?
I find it strange defending Riemannian geometry because I
don't really like the geometrical interpretation of physics.
I don't believe in the "fabric" of spacetime, although it's
a fairly accurate model of reality.
We know your reality
- you had to delete
GPS clocks from it, as they didn't fit
your sick delusions.
So, did maps exist before Riemann?
Another example of reality denying by
Harrie, well known reality denier. You've
got a direct link to Poincare's text.
"To doubt everything or to believe everything are
two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the
necessity of reflection.
"Instead of a summary condemnation we should examine with
the utmost care the rôle of hypothesis"
And:
"Experiment no doubt teaches us that the sum of the
angles of a triangle is equal to two right angles".
Those idiocies of Earth maps allegedly denying that -
were concocted later by relativistic doggies to
excuse the madness of their idiot guru.
And Wozzie is the one who doubts
Said Harrie, well known for his doubts.
ODD-Wozzie somehow believes that his link refutes
alternative geometries.
A lie/slander again.
Of course.
Your pathetic lies of zillions of experiments
allegedly confirming self-denying mumble
of your idiot guru are still irrelevant for
the thread.
ODD ADHD Wozzie is incompetent to read scientific text, let
alone understand it. He goes through life arrogantly
believing he has done great things, but he's the only one
in the whole world that thinks so.
Your spitting, lies and slanders help nothing.
The Shit of your idot guru was not even consistent
and most of its so called "evidence" was doctored.
On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 17:52:38 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 29.08.2024 o 18:37, gharnagel pisze:
On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 14:19:16 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
But did they exist before Riemann declared his idiocies?
If they did they change much after that?
I find it strange defending Riemannian geometry because I
don't really like the geometrical interpretation of physics.
I don't believe in the "fabric" of spacetime, although it's
a fairly accurate model of reality.
We know your reality
There is no "we" with Wozniak, so he is lying again, or he has
a mouse in his pocket.
- you had to delete
GPS clocks from it, as they didn't fit
your sick delusions.
Wozniak can stuff his sick delusions up his butt. Nobody cares
about his railings, lies and stupid dishonest questions.
So, did maps exist before Riemann?
Like that one, for example.
Another example of reality denying by
Harrie, well known reality denier. You've
got a direct link to Poincare's text.
"To doubt everything or to believe everything are
two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the
necessity of reflection.
"Instead of a summary condemnation we should examine with
the utmost care the rôle of hypothesis"
And:
"Experiment no doubt teaches us that the sum of the
angles of a triangle is equal to two right angles".
Those idiocies of Earth maps allegedly denying that -
were concocted later by relativistic doggies to
excuse the madness of their idiot guru.
Silly, silly Wozzie-boy. The sum of the angles of a
triangle on the earth's surface is NOT equal to
ODD-Wozzie somehow believes that his link refutes
alternative geometries.
A lie/slander again.
Of course.
Okay, then Wozzie-liar believes in Riemannian geometry
and relativity.
Your pathetic lies of zillions of experiments
allegedly confirming self-denying mumble
of your idiot guru are still irrelevant for
the thread.
ODD ADHD Wozzie is incompetent to read scientific text, let
alone understand it. He goes through life arrogantly
believing he has done great things, but he's the only one
in the whole world that thinks so.
Your spitting, lies and slanders help nothing.
Well, it sure doesn't help cure Wozzie'sADHD ODD mental
instability. But I was hoping.
The Shit of your idot guru was not even consistent
and most of its so called "evidence" was doctored.
A lie, of course, concocted by fundamentally dishonest and
incompetent Wozzie-liar.
On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 20:00:13 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
[Extreme bs and nonsense deleted]
....
[Extreme bs and nonsense deleted]
....
[Extreme bs and nonsense deleted]
....
I've pointed directly 2 denying themself
statements derivable in the physics of your
idiot guru. Your lies, slanders, insults won't
help, it was inconsistent.
All lies, of course, concocted by fundamentally
[Extreme bs and nonsense deleted]
....
[Extreme bs and nonsense deleted]
....
[Extreme bs and nonsense deleted]
....
I've pointed directly 2 denying themself
statements derivable in the physics of your
idiot guru. Your lies, slanders, insults won't
help, it was inconsistent.
[Lies, slanders, insults and nonsense deleted]
On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 21:06:07 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
[Lies, slanders, insults and nonsense deleted]
All lies, of course, concocted by fundamentally
dishonest and incompetent Wozzie-liar. Wozzie
is a very sick soul. Apparently, he's addicted
to an endorphin boost by arguing, insulting,
lying and slandering. He can go pound sand.
W dniu 30.08.2024 o 05:01, gharnagel pisze:
On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 21:06:07 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
[Lies, slanders, insults and nonsense deleted]
All lies, of course, concocted by fundamentally
dishonest and incompetent Wozzie-liar. Wozzie
is a very sick soul. Apparently, he's addicted
to an endorphin boost by arguing, insulting,
lying and slandering. He can go pound sand.
Screaming "NOOOOOOO!!!!" and stamping feet
won't help, the proof won't go away, the
mumble of your idiot guru was not even
consistent. Sorry, trash.
On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 4:07:47 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 30.08.2024 o 05:01, gharnagel pisze:
On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 21:06:07 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
[Lies, slanders, insults and nonsense deleted]
All lies, of course, concocted by fundamentally
dishonest and incompetent Wozzie-liar. Wozzie
is a very sick soul. Apparently, he's addicted
to an endorphin boost by arguing, insulting,
lying and slandering. He can go pound sand.
Screaming "NOOOOOOO!!!!" and stamping feet
won't help, the proof won't go away, the
mumble of your idiot guru was not even
consistent. Sorry, trash.
Stupid, ignoramus Wozzie-fool believes he "wins" by
being the last poster, so he cuts and pastes his past
idiocies. This is his typical infantile behavior.
I win because I've proven the thesis I claimed.
You loose because apart of mad ravings, idiotic
lies, dodging questions, insult and slanders
you presented nothing. Sorry, trash.
On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 13:57:30 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
I win because I've proven the thesis I claimed.
You loose because apart of mad ravings, idiotic
lies, dodging questions, insult and slanders
you presented nothing. Sorry, trash.
Wozzie deletes the entire disproof that his insane
assertions because he knows that it's bool poop.
W dniu 31.08.2024 o 00:38, gharnagel pisze:
On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 13:57:30 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
I win because I've proven the thesis I claimed.
You loose because apart of mad ravings, idiotic
lies, dodging questions, insult and slanders
you presented nothing. Sorry, trash.
Wozzie deletes the entire disproof that his insane
assertions because he knows that it's bool poop.
I've pointed out 2 denying themself predictions
derivable in the physics of your idiot guru.
I've proven its inconsistency.
A fanatic doggie screaming "NOOOOO!!!!" and waving
his arms is changing nothing. Sorry, trash.
[snip boring nonsense]
With your mad lies you've lost any norms,
On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 4:42:06 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 31.08.2024 o 00:38, gharnagel pisze:
On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 13:57:30 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
I win because I've proven the thesis I claimed.
You loose because apart of mad ravings, idiotic
lies, dodging questions, insult and slanders
you presented nothing. Sorry, trash.
Wozzie deletes the entire disproof that his insane
assertions because he knows that it's bool poop.
I've pointed out 2 denying themself predictions
derivable in the physics of your idiot guru.
I've proven its inconsistency.
Wozzie's "thesis" is a concocted fantasy. His claim
that relativity is inconsistent is based on ridiculous
assertions (1) that the "definition" of a day (84600
seconds) applies to the entire universe, (2) that
relativity is false because it predicts that an observer
moving at c/2 will measure a day on earth as 99766
seconds
supporting relativity is fabricated by lying scientists.
Le 31/08/2024 à 14:32, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
[snip boring nonsense]
With your mad lies you've lost any norms,
Speaking of norms, you are the only person of your kind
(as you admitted). It is quite weak for a norm, isn't it Maciej?
W dniu 31.08.2024 o 14:42, Python pisze:
Le 31/08/2024 à 14:32, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
[snip boring nonsense]
With your mad lies you've lost any norms,
Speaking of norms, you are the only person of your kind
(as you admitted). It is quite weak for a norm, isn't it Maciej?
It is.
W dniu 31.08.2024 o 13:52, gharnagel pisze:
Wozzie's "thesis" is a concocted fantasy. His claim
that relativity is inconsistent is based on ridiculous
assertions (1) that the "definition" of a day (84600
seconds) applies to the entire universe, (2) that
relativity is false because it predicts that an observer
moving at c/2 will measure a day on earth as 99766
seconds
Harrie is impudently lying.
Like always.
I didn't make any of these claims.
and (3) that copious experimental evidence
supporting relativity is fabricated by lying
scientists.
At least this one is true.
Of course, youhaven't fabricate these experiments,
but you have for sure fabricated the assertions
that they are kind of "evidence"
for the self-denying mumble of your idiot
guru.
With your mad lies you've lost any norms,
you're even insisting that ordinary maps
are denying basic mathematics.
On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 12:32:58 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 31.08.2024 o 13:52, gharnagel pisze:
Wozzie's "thesis" is a concocted fantasy. His claim
that relativity is inconsistent is based on ridiculous
assertions (1) that the "definition" of a day (84600
seconds) applies to the entire universe, (2) that
relativity is false because it predicts that an observer
moving at c/2 will measure a day on earth as 99766
seconds
Harrie is impudently lying.
So Wozniak has this serious mental problem because he
thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is lying:
Of course, youhaven't fabricate these experiments,
but you have for sure fabricated the assertions
that they are kind of "evidence"
Wozniak hasn't denied that he definitely smeared
hundreds of honest scientists claiming they lied
about their experimental results.
With your mad lies you've lost any norms,
you're even insisting that ordinary maps
are denying basic mathematics.
Wozniak is projecting his own abnormalities
on others
for his own mental health.
W dniu 31.08.2024 o 22:46, gharnagel pisze:
On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 12:32:58 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 31.08.2024 o 13:52, gharnagel pisze:
Wozzie's "thesis" is a concocted fantasy. His claim
that relativity is inconsistent is based on ridiculous
assertions (1) that the "definition" of a day (84600
seconds) applies to the entire universe, (2) that
relativity is false because it predicts that an observer
moving at c/2 will measure a day on earth as 99766
seconds
Harrie is impudently lying.
So Wozniak has this serious mental problem because he
thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is lying:
Nope. So, Harrie is impudently lying because
I never claimed these things.
lies are what is expected from a relativistic doggie
in general and from Harrie especially.
Of course, youhaven't fabricate these experiments,
but you have for sure fabricated the assertions
that they are kind of "evidence"
Wozniak hasn't denied that he definitely smeared
hundreds of honest scientists claiming they lied
about their experimental results.
That's how a fanatic madness works.
With your mad lies you've lost any norms,
you're even insisting that ordinary maps
are denying basic mathematics.
Wozniak is projecting his own abnormalities
on others
Nope, your bunch of idiots is indeed mad
enough to insist that ordinary maps
are denying basic mathematics.. Can
provide a quoting.
On Sun, 1 Sep 2024 4:36:52 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 31.08.2024 o 22:46, gharnagel pisze:
On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 12:32:58 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 31.08.2024 o 13:52, gharnagel pisze:
Wozzie's "thesis" is a concocted fantasy. His claim
that relativity is inconsistent is based on ridiculous
assertions (1) that the "definition" of a day (84600
seconds) applies to the entire universe, (2) that
relativity is false because it predicts that an observer
moving at c/2 will measure a day on earth as 99766
seconds
Harrie is impudently lying.
So Wozniak has this serious mental problem because he
thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is lying:
Nope. So, Harrie is impudently lying because
I never claimed these things.
Wozniak is in denial
Of course, youhaven't fabricate these experiments,
but you have for sure fabricated the assertions
that they are kind of "evidence"
Wozniak hasn't denied that he definitely smeared
hundreds of honest scientists claiming they lied
about their experimental results.
That's how a fanatic madness works.
Yes, Wozniak has hit the nail on the head: he demonstrates
a "fanatic madness"
"His claim that relativity is inconsistent is
based on ridiculous assertions (1) that the
'definition' of a day (84600 seconds) applies
to the entire universe,"
So he prefers character assassination to honest
debate.
"(2) that relativity is false because it predicts
that an observer moving at c/2 will measure a day
on earth as 99766 seconds"
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
"Three things cannot hide for long: the Moon, the
Sun and the Truth.” -- Buddha
“The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack
it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there
it is.”
W dniu 01.09.2024 o 14:22, gharnagel pisze:
On Sun, 1 Sep 2024 4:36:52 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 31.08.2024 o 22:46, gharnagel pisze:
On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 12:32:58 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 31.08.2024 o 13:52, gharnagel pisze:
Wozzie's "thesis" is a concocted fantasy. His claim
that relativity is inconsistent is based on ridiculous
assertions (1) that the "definition" of a day (84600
seconds) applies to the entire universe, (2) that
relativity is false because it predicts that an observer
moving at c/2 will measure a day on earth as 99766
seconds
Harrie is impudently lying.
So Wozniak has this serious mental problem because he
thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is lying:
Nope. So, Harrie is impudently lying because
I never claimed these things.
Wozniak is in denial
Nope. Harrie is in lying.
Of course, youhaven't fabricate these experiments,
but you have for sure fabricated the assertions
that they are kind of "evidence"
Wozniak hasn't denied that he definitely smeared
hundreds of honest scientists claiming they lied
about their experimental results.
That's how a fanatic madness works.
Yes, Wozniak has hit the nail on the head: he demonstrates
a "fanatic madness"
Oppositely, you and your fellow liars demonstrate
fanatic madness by insisting that clocks of
GPS are not real, ordinary Earth maps are denying
basic [Euclidean] mathematics and so on.
"His claim that relativity is inconsistent is
based on ridiculous assertions (1) that the
'definition' of a day (84600 seconds) applies
to the entire universe,"
As said before - I've never said such thing, poor
Harrie is lying, as expected from him.
So he prefers character assassination to honest
debate.
"(2) that relativity is false because it predicts
that an observer moving at c/2 will measure a day
on earth as 99766 seconds"
Neither.
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Again, your impudent lies that these experiments
are somehow supporting the self-denying mumble
of your idiot guru - are completely irrelevant
to this thread.
"Three things cannot hide for long: the Moon, the
Sun and the Truth.” -- Buddha
“The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack
it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there
it is.”
Right, here it is: the clocks of GPS are real
and the physics of your idiot guru was not
even consistent.
On Sun, 1 Sep 2024 13:00:22 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 01.09.2024 o 14:22, gharnagel pisze:
On Sun, 1 Sep 2024 4:36:52 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 31.08.2024 o 22:46, gharnagel pisze:
On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 12:32:58 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 31.08.2024 o 13:52, gharnagel pisze:
Wozzie's "thesis" is a concocted fantasy. His claim
that relativity is inconsistent is based on ridiculous
assertions (1) that the "definition" of a day (84600
seconds) applies to the entire universe, (2) that
relativity is false because it predicts that an observer
moving at c/2 will measure a day on earth as 99766
seconds
Harrie is impudently lying.
So Wozniak has this serious mental problem because he
thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is lying:
Nope. So, Harrie is impudently lying because
I never claimed these things.
Wozniak is in denial
Nope. Harrie is in lying.
Wozniak has this paranoia problem, accusing people of
lying to him. It's not a lie if they truly believe what
they say. Wozniak claims he "never claimed these things"
but what said strongly implied my thesis.
Doesn't matter for the thread, however,
the clocks of GPS are still real
and the physics of your idiot guru remains inconsistent.
On Mon, 2 Sep 2024 4:50:54 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Doesn't matter for the thread, however,
the clocks of GPS are still real
I never said they weren't.
Wozniak has had this explained to him many times, but he
intransigently lies about it: when t = time on earth and
t' = time in orbit, t' definitely does NOT equal t.
W dniu 02.09.2024 o 15:16, gharnagel pisze:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2024 4:50:54 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Doesn't matter for the thread, however,
the clocks of GPS are still real
I never said they weren't.
Yes, you did. At least you're ashamed.
Wozniak has had this explained to him many times, but he
intransigently lies about it: when t = time on earth and
t' = time in orbit, t' definitely does NOT equal t.
So, when t (the readings of a clock in a ground GPS https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/GPS_Ground_Segment
base - choose any of them ) is 2024-09-04-15:00:00.0000000 -
what is t'(the readings of a GPS satellite - choose any https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GPS_satellites
of them ) going to be?
Still no answer? Of course. And still no surprise.
Lies still have short legs.
On Mon, 2 Sep 2024 15:23:04 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 02.09.2024 o 15:16, gharnagel pisze:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2024 4:50:54 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Doesn't matter for the thread, however,
the clocks of GPS are still real
I never said they weren't.
Yes, you did. At least you're ashamed.
Neither. Wozniak is so mendacious. He uses dishonest
"gotcha" assertions and questions: He doesn't define
"real" so it can mean anything like "not nonexistent"
(which is certainly true) or "bona fide" (which leaves
that definition flapping in the wind. It has been
explained to him many, many times that the satellite
clocks are ENGINEERED
Wozniak has had this explained to him many times, but he
intransigently lies about it: when t = time on earth and
t' = time in orbit, t' definitely does NOT equal t.
So, when t (the readings of a clock in a ground GPS
https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/GPS_Ground_Segment
base - choose any of them ) is 2024-09-04-15:00:00.0000000 -
what is t'(the readings of a GPS satellite - choose any
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GPS_satellites
of them ) going to be?
Still no answer? Of course. And still no surprise.
Lies still have short legs.
And Wozniak has no legs to stand on because he has both feet
On Tue, 3 Sep 2024 17:23:56 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 03.09.2024 o 16:11, gharnagel pisze:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2024 15:23:04 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Yes, you did. At least you're ashamed.
Neither. Wozniak is so mendacious. He uses dishonest
"gotcha" assertions and questions: He doesn't define
"real" so it can mean anything like "not nonexistent"
(which is certainly true) or "bona fide" (which leaves
that definition flapping in the wind. It has been
explained to him many, many times that the satellite
clocks are ENGINEERED
Harrie, clocks which are not - exist only
in your moronic gedanken delusions. In
the real world - every clock ever was
engineered.
Mendacious Maciej prevaricates again by deleting part of
my response. This is LYING.
So, when t (the readings of a clock in a ground GPS
https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/GPS_Ground_Segment
base - choose any of them ) is 2024-09-04-15:00:00.0000000 -
what is t'(the readings of a GPS satellite - choose any
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GPS_satellites
of them ) going to be?
Still no answer? Of course. And still no surprise.
Lies still have short legs.
And Wozniak has no legs to stand on because he has both feet
Any number? No. More insults? Yes.
Wozzie-burning-butt is so-o-o anxious to misdirect from the big
W dniu 03.09.2024 o 16:11, gharnagel pisze:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2024 15:23:04 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Yes, you did. At least you're ashamed.
Neither. Wozniak is so mendacious. He uses dishonest
"gotcha" assertions and questions: He doesn't define
"real" so it can mean anything like "not nonexistent"
(which is certainly true) or "bona fide" (which leaves
that definition flapping in the wind. It has been
explained to him many, many times that the satellite
clocks are ENGINEERED
Harrie, clocks which are not - exist only
in your moronic gedanken delusions. In
the real world - every clock ever was
engineered.
So, when t (the readings of a clock in a ground GPS https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/GPS_Ground_Segment
base - choose any of them ) is 2024-09-04-15:00:00.0000000 -
what is t'(the readings of a GPS satellite - choose any https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GPS_satellites
of them ) going to be?
Still no answer? Of course. And still no surprise.
Lies still have short legs.
And Wozniak has no legs to stand on because he has both feet
Any number? No. More insults? Yes.
Of course, you can't fill your lies with details.
W dniu 04.09.2024 o 19:37, gharnagel pisze:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2024 17:23:56 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Harrie, clocks which are not - exist only
in your moronic gedanken delusions. In
the real world - every clock ever was
engineered.
Mendacious Maciej prevaricates again by deleting part of
my response. This is LYING.
No, this is selecting,
and mendacious Gary is doing the same, always.
Any number? No. More insults? Yes.
Wozzie-burning-butt is so-o-o anxious to misdirect from the big
Any number? No. More insults? Yes.Of course.
Lies still have short legs.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 349 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 142:15:35 |
| Calls: | 7,613 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,790 |
| Messages: | 5,684,452 |